User talk:Doc James

WikiProject
Pharmacology

General information

Project page

talk

Departments
→ Assessment (Log)	talk
→ Research	talk
→ Editor outreach	talk

How to help

Requested articles (1) / (2)

Cleanup list

Recent edit to Lower Spinal Stenosis

Hi James,

I received your message about the edits to the page about LSS and was confused about what the problem with the entry was. References were made to a third-party clinical journal and the entry made no claims or assertions. If you could let me know how it needs to be specifically modified, or if it needs to go in another section, I would appreciate it. I've been doing research on LSS and noticed that this treatment was missing from the article.

Here was the entry for reference:

Interventional Therapy

For patients "who fail conservative therapies and are not surgical candidates due to co-morbid conditions," recent developments in technology, most notably the Mild procedure, have lead to minimally invasive options that do not involve large incisions, the destruction of muscle tissue or prolonged recuperation.^[1]

The conclusion of this study revealed that the Mild procedure "appears to be a safe and likely effective option of neurogenic claudication in patients who have failed consecutive therapy and have ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as the primary distinguishing component of stenosis."^[1]

Thank you for your feedback!

^ ^a ^b Lingreen R, Grider J (2010). "Retrospective Review of Patient Self-Reported Improvement and Post-Procedure Findings for mild (Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression)". Pain Physician. 13: 555–560. ISSN 13:555-560. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Comment

never mind, I got it :)

Improper Protection of Circumcision

Hello Doc. As a contributing editor of a highly polarized article you should not be taking the reigns and protecting the article yourself. This could easily be construed as you protecting your own interest. If you are concerned over vandalism and/or edit wars you should list said concerns on appropriate notice boards. Please remove page protection and follow standard procedures. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I would have to agree that you shouldn't be the one making that kind of admin action per WP:INVOLVED. Could I ask that you please remove the semi-protection? Best, NW (Talk) 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to have terrible problems with vandalism at that article, and have done for a long time. Semi-protection has been a tremendous help. Maybe another admin could re-apply protection? Jakew (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I semi protected as this was what I thought it was before it was fully protected. I someone wishes to unprotect feel free. I am not sure if I will have secure internet for the next week.--70.28.245.114 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so the article was indef semi protected however when full protection ended after a week instead of reverted back to semi it reverted to nothing. I do not see applying semi again an issue as it was already applied before full.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's more defensible, but you really should leave this to uninvolved admins at WP:RFPP. It eliminates any chance of complaints later. NW (Talk) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We appear to be dealing with a bunch of WP:SPAs who have no intention of discussing the current evidence. Thus we shall continue as before :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Abortion

Read this just now ... I do have more familiarity with Wikipedia than you. Do you understand why I consulted the Admin noticeboard? Are you under the impression Wikipedia is a medical text? Your reverts imply it is. - Roy Boy 01:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia represents the best literature out there. This is what my revert implies. I am not sure what you getting at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So yes? "best" means medical verbiage is superior for surgical abortion -- is most appropriate for the broader encyclopedic topic of abortion regardless of caveats (exceptions to viability), its technical nature (Britannica tries to resolve that). While stability and disputes can be shrugged off as pro-life nit-picking (I've been involved since 2006), the technical nature of viability is unencyclopedic and simply inaccurate outside a medical context (Britannica again tries to address that, with "usually"). I'd prefer to avoid weasel words in our lead. - Roy Boy 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others that "death" without appropriate qualifications is inappropriate especially since most sources do not use it. I am happy with "usually before viability" as a compromise. Does not appear you had much luck resolving things at ANI which was why I did not join in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post to the Admin Noticeboard to "resolve things", one specific thing, Wikipedia isn't a democracy for good reason. I was curious if any Admin clued into that. Yes, I would have liked one of them to intervene on that point, but I wasn't getting my hopes up. :) Death is defined once, viable is not. Yes, there is an implication of alive / person-hood with death (Orangemarlin thought I allowed pro-lifers to sneak that past me), viable has its own implications and assumptions. The difference seems to be our comfort level. We aren't merely defining a medical procedure in a clinic, with a doctor and patient who consented; rather a complex topic that happens worldwide from sterilized hospitals to war torn jungles. - Roy Boy 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure to what you refer here "Death is defined once, viable is not."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death strictly defined is the termination of biological processes of an organism (from Wiki); this is the only official definition that I'm aware of. While in common parlance its usually used to describe the termination of an independent lifeform, this does not define death. Viable, medically the consensus is (20 weeks' gestation or fetal weight <500g); but even there I am to understand 20 weeks gestation is about 50% chance of actual viability, "prior to 28 weeks' gestation" there is no medical standard for viability. Legally viability changes from one jurisdiction to the next. Medical texts can ignore that, we cannot... or we really shouldn't. - Roy Boy 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the earliest survival is 21 weeks 6 days. There has never been survival at 20 weeks. PMID: 11060525 As there is not death of an independent lifeform there is not death with abortion. If I was to remove someones toe I have not killed anything in the usual sense. While biologically one could argue that I caused the death of the toe people just do not refer to it as such.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was repeating what I saw in talk recently, but I stand corrected on viability; thanks for the ref. I believe "independent" is OR, as is killed; the toes was alive, now it is dead. Ultimately that's why death was chosen in 2006. - Roy Boy 04:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already use the term "termination" which is sufficient.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"termination of pregnancy" wasn't sufficient. While "nonviable" tries to pick up where termination leaves off, this is a medical convention, not necessarily a reflection of broader reality; both in late-abortion practice and legal variety. As a medical convention it is ideal, not necessarily elsewhere. Thanks for the mini-discussion, I guess we will continue if necessary back on talk:abortion. - Roy Boy 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fort William Sanatorium

I have started an article about Fort William Sanatorium, a now-closed tuberculosis hospital in Thunder Bay. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bronchomoniliasis

I have posted a comment at Talk:Candidiasis#Bronchomoniliasis which may be of interest. I noticed a journal article on bronchomoniliasis as I was looking for information about Fort William Sanatorium. I'm not a doctor, and I don't know whether bronchomoniliasis should have its own article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

From the editor: Stepping down

Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emphysema reverts

Hi. Please tell me why you reverted my adds to the Notable Causes section. Both actors' articles state that they died of emphysema.

Thanks for the offer of help. Beyond pointing readers to the actors' Wikipedia articles, what sort of supporting evidence should I post? Regarding the lung stem cell add, do you want me to add the citation at *exactly* the same time I add the info or you'll revert it? While I was working on the formatting for the cite, you wiped the copy off.

Doc - Followed your advice. Please take a look at the article and let me know if I did it right. 174.252.246.3 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes much better :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James or Docjames

I am confused. When I click on the user name Doc James it refers me to your User talk: Jmh649. However, in the section "A bit about me", you state that DocJames is a different editor. Is there a difference between Doc James and DocJames? Why does the hyperlink Doc James link to to the User page:Jmh649? Is this an error? I also appreciate your Teddy quote commenting on the role of the gladiator versus the critic. It's inspirational. Thank you. Otto Placik (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You might like to read WP:CUSTOMSIG. In addition to changing the color and font in their signatures, people choose to display nicknames rather than their official account names.

There are many users with confusingly similar names. User:Docjames is not the same human as User:Doc James; User:Mastcell is not the same human as User:MastCell. User:Jmh649 obviously created User:Doc James as a WP:DOPPELGANGER account, to prevent someone else becoming the third "Doc James" on Wikipedia (either by accident, or for malicious purposes: prominent editors often attract impersonators). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for clearing that up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Thanks for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agwoodliffe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: peptic ulcer

Hello, Thank you for the information. That was my first edit, and I actually went back and did my best to rephrase my source.Draco04 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alprazolam

The article contains various misrepresentation of references. Like previous benzodiazepine articles it has been vandalized by systematic misrepresentation of sources, see the case of the Temazepam article. It needs systematic cross check against the references. See my recent edits and verify, please. I agree with the removal of untenable indication against depression on its own, the refs are indeed dated. But the other claims need to be checked. Seems that misinformation has systematically been introduced by editor VeronicaPR (blocked), Thegoodson (blocked) and IP sockpuppets of them. Can you check that out? 70.137.154.88 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Thanks will do when I have time. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ref for use in depression better?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8262892 70.137.154.88 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[RL11-1] Lingreen R, Grider J (2010). "Retrospective Review of Patient Self-Reported Improvement and Post-Procedure Findings for mild (Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression)". Pain Physician. 13: 555–560. ISSN 13:555-560. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[1]